Inca Empire filter for the Hall of Fame Tables

[Sun Tzu Wu]

edit: someone better tell Tachy that Worker stealing is an unfair exploit

No that is not at all what I said.

If you want to fairly beat another game. You restrict yourself to the limitations that were understood at the time that game was played. Until the last update, a worker steal was never successfully utilized in a Deity RLDV #1 game. At least I have never successfully won such a game.

Not using a worker steal was simply part of my counter proposal to WastinTime. My counter proposal was absolutely fair. I simply didn't explain my small restriction about entering Tribal Villages correctly. I clarified that later.

It is far easier to regenerate a map, pop a hut and repeat it than using MapFinder. Loading a map on a disk is much slower. Going back to Inca Civ, it takes only a start that can muster 4 Hpt at 1P for a viable Quechua rush, so regenerating can be a perfectly adequate way to find maps and regenerating is much faster than loading them from disk.

Sun Tzu wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

So your OK with every other exploitative technique, just not Inca?

I will tolerate every other exploitative technique, except Inca Civ, because it restricts the viable Civs competitive with it to just one, Inca Civ.

Of course I dislike other exploitative game elements like the Tribal Village. For example, free Horseback Riding and free Aesthetics in turn 17 of a Classical Era game seems very exploitative. However, I can choose any player Civ whether or not Huts are on or off. I only use Huts to be competitive with other players that usually use Huts as well.

I can't think of another legal exploitative game element that really bothers me.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Denniz]

Quite a lively discussion going on. A little bit too lively in a couple cases. Let's not get too personnal here folks. I would hate to have to close the thread.

That said, all the trash talk between STW and WT is kind of fun to watch. If it it weren't for the fact they only care about Deity, I might have them define the gaunlets for awhile. Maybe we should have a extra gaunlet for them. That way anyone interested can get in on the fun. Anyone want to start a poll about that?

_______________________________________________________________

As to who owns the HOF data, I would guess that would be Thunderfall. He is the one paying for the server.

_______________________________________________________________

The concept of a screen scrapper or type of bot being used to pull our data is not attractive. The potential for disruption of the server would be high. HOF is not the only website being hosted off the one server. I would hope that players would be respectful of community and not disrupt our server with something like that. We would have to figure out how to limit something like that. That would only create more work for us.

________________________________________________________________

One thing I think gets lost in the discussion is that the definition of an "Official" HOF Table was defined when we ended the Beta all those years ago. The criteria and rules were set at that point. While we have made small adjustments for exploits, we have tried not to change the basic definition of the HOF. The main page is a reflection of that.

Being able to see how you would have done if Inca had been outlawed or huts we disallowed or something combination is understandable. BUT there can be only ONE Offical CivFanatics Civ4 Hall of Fame page. Just as there can be only ONE #1 for any given HOF table. That's it. Our whole purpose for existing is that ONE page you see when you log in. You can only claim hold a #1 position on a HOF table if your name is on that page.

We already had to bastardize it once so we wouldn't disenfranchise players from before the expansions came out. Note: We only changed the page to add speed in order to clarify the definition of an Official HOF table. The original page didn't spell it out well enough which was causing confusion. (If you do not want to find yourself banned from the HOF, I would advise you not to use either of those two things as an arguement for changes you want. )

So while I understand peoples desire to eliminate all those inconvienent games ahead of them that were played using rules you don't personally agree with, it ain't going to happen. If you want the fame that comes with a #1 spot on a CivFanatics Civ4 Hall of Fame, you gotta EARN it.

 

[WastinTime]

If you want to fairly beat another game. You restrict yourself to the limitations that were understood at the time that game was played. Until the last update, a worker steal was never successfully utilized in a Deity RLDV #1 game.

Then my Ramesses #1 game doesn't count either because you never used that leader before.

So many restrictions. Ok, so how many forests can I chop before it's an exploit? What is the most forests you've chopped?

p.s.
It doesn't help your case calling every strategy you've never used you don't like an exploit.

@Denniz: Is that challenge for me to pack up my Inca and take them to another difficulty level?

 

[neilmeister]

If you want to fairly beat another game. You restrict yourself to the limitations that were understood at the time that game was played. Until the last update, a worker steal was never successfully utilized in a Deity RLDV #1 game.

Just trying to understand your position.

If something has never been done before, then it is not fair to ever do it in the future??

Is that correct?

@Denniz
My apologies if I have contributed to the liveliness.
I wasn't suggesting anyone actually builds a website to scrape this one, but it was the obvious answer to a simple question (and I wanted that lollipop )


edit: x-post with WT, on exactly the same topic

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

@Denniz:

Thanks for spending your time on preparing the very informative post above! I probably should have looked up some those things myself before starting this thread or its ancester.

I'm glad you enjoyed the contract negotiation between WastinTime and myself. Sometimes these things don't work out the way you hope, despite the best of intentions. Just don't expect a contract negotiation to reveal anything either party really believes.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Then my Ramesses #1 game doesn't count either because you never used that leader before.

So many restrictions. Ok, so how many forests can I chop before it's an exploit? What is the most forests you've chopped?

p.s.
It doesn't help your case calling every strategy you've never used you don't like an exploit.

@Denniz: Is that challenge for me to pack up my Inca and take them to another difficulty level?

I'm sorry, this appears to be a simple misunderstanding:

1. You asked me what three of my best games are, saying you would try beat them with a non-Inca Civ.
2. I responded with additional conditions that matched those I met in these games when I originally played them, making your task more difficult, but still reasonably fair (I'm not asking for any restrictions I did _not_ meet in these games myself).
3. You thought I meant the restrictions to apply to all your future games (I take some blame for that by not being clear enough and also failing to clearly define the Tribal Village restriction which I did in a subsequent post).

The restrictions I mentioned apply only to the three games you originally asked me about. These are restrictions not unlike those often specified the HoF Challenge series and HoF Gauntlets, though some like no Worker steals may require manual checking for a DoW.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I've filtered out all the games offensive to you.

1) log in first.
2) Then go here:

It didn't work. I still see Inca wins.

It's much better when step #1 is skipped.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I do think that it is the point sorry. There has already been talk of no-huts check boxes, no-barb check boxes etc. These are all, to my mind, equally as valid as no-Inca.
We only have a limited amount of resources (there is never enough time) and cannot make all the changes that would be nice to have. We have to weigh up what is necessary and go ahead with that.

We have made changes to the layout of the site before and won't rule it out in the future but only for things we feel are necessary.

Actually, that isn't true.

I am sorry I missed this huts/barbs thing. It is quite honestly ridiculous to add elements of luck/retrial to the HoF needlessly. Huts and events are by far the single most ridiculous thing the HoF has ever CONSIDERED allowing, and they're allowed to this day.

By contrast, while it's boring to see "inca inca inca inca inca inca inca inca" across the HoF table, there's no fundamental imbalance there. Inca is the strongest civ. People know it. If you remove them, there is likely to be a new strongest civ (I'd guess either Egypt or Persia...I don't think Rome can keep up with those 2 even with marabuse). That doesn't really assist the quality of the competition. Such a filter would only make sense if it were trivial to implement a system where a player could filter anything he wants (IE could even do something like only considering German civ games valid). That would certainly be a nice and handy service in the HoF tables...not just to filter Inca but to filter virtually anything for comparison's sake. If it weren't a lot of work I'd definitely recommend doing it. If it isn't practical I wouldn't though.

However, huts and events both skew competition away from skill and towards repeitition. I have always and will always accurately state that such is a *bad* policy for the HoF, which claims that these results are skill-based. It's bad enough to force players to try to get lucky with map rolls, but each factor you add on top of that is another layer of stars aligning before their skill can even possibly matter.

You guys did at least meet me halfway by largely removing the most ridiculous things from the challenge series...but the huts/events thing is a much more serious issue than Inca can be.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I agree that the HoF should eliminate all unecessary randomness like Tribal Villages and Events.

However, in the Ancient Era, the Inca Empire can rush AIs with inadequately prepared defenses. Its leader Huayna Capac has one of the best pairs of traits (Industrious, Financial). Its unique building, the Terrace, is a Granary (most built building) with +2 Culture per turn. Its unique unit, the Quechua, is a Warrior with free Combat I and +100% versus Archery units that can always built starting turn 0. A Quechua with just its free Combat I promotion has an 86% chance versus an Archer without defensive bonuses. Small stacks of Quechua can lay
waste to several AI Civs at Monarch to Deity difficulty levels at game speeds ranging from Quick through Marathon.

This all results in an Ancient Era Civ that is an Order of Magnitude more powerful than the next more powerful Civs (Persian Empire, Egyptian Empire, Roman Empire, Sumerian Empire, Mongolian Empire, etc.) are above the lesser powerful Civs.

The above implies that in getting a new #1 in a HoF slot one has a short list of viable Civs to choose from:

Inca Empire

What is worse is this Civ takes very little skill to Quechua rush several AI Civs early. With a skilled player, the Inca Empire can win games so early as to be completely out of reach of any non-Inca Civ. Thus the list of viable competitors remains just:

Inca Empire

The Inca filter would still allow Inca Empire games. It would also allow non-Inca games to be compared to each other without the potentially unfair comparision to the Inca Empire.

The current G-minor is targeting a weak Inca #1 game as a missed guided attempt to show that non-Inca games can beat Inca games. Well given the motivation to win a Gauntlet, I'm sure it will happen. However, an Inca only Gauntlet would give Inca the #1 slot back to an Inca game by a wide margin (5-10% better win turn #).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[WastinTime]

Sorry. Off the main topic, but in response to the last couple posts....

What the G-minor will show is that huts don't matter nearly as much as many people (who don't play huts) think. The greatest #1 non-Inca game (with huts) will be beaten by a non-Inca (no Huts) game. That's true for 99% of the HoF slots. Huts do NOT make the game, and they do NOT cover for lack of skill.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Sorry. Off the main topic, but in response to the last couple posts....

What the G-minor will show is that huts don't matter nearly as much as many people (who don't play huts) think. The greatest #1 non-Inca game (with huts) will be beaten by a non-Inca (no Huts) game. That's true for 99% of the HoF slots. Huts do NOT make the game, and they do NOT cover for lack of skill.

Sorry, you are absolutely wrong. The Gauntlet has to run again with Tribal Villages allowed. Surely your two Inca RLDV victories must have been significantly faster, after popping Mining and Bronze Working very early in those two games. I don't understand how you can minimize such a huge advantage.

We must use the Scientific Method to validate our claims, even when they seem obvious. Without it, strategic knowledge can not advance reliably.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[WastinTime]

I don't understand how you can minimize such a huge advantage.

Barely even affects the win date. On quick speed, tech is not the bottleneck. It's how fast you can get workers and chop out the wonders.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Barely even affects the win date. On quick speed, tech is not the bottleneck. It's how fast you can get workers and chop out the wonders.

Not entirely true.

Not needing to research Mining and Bronze Working (7-10% of all Beakers normally needed), means The Oracle can be completed several turns (2-3) due to a reduced Research load. That implies that TAP can be started 2-3 turns sooner and with good Worker micro finished 2-3 turns sooner. It follows that the win can occur 2-3 turns sooner as well, assuming one's missionary micro is also on spot. On Quick speed, 2-3 turns is fairly big margin.

It also means Workers can start chopping ASAP after necessary improvements are completed. Obviously, Workers can't start chopping until Bronze Working is completed.

If you really think that getting Technologies from Tribal Villages is insignificant such that it "Barely even affects the win date.", then stop using Tribal Villages.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[WastinTime]

huts (and events) make the game more interesting and fun (for me).

 

[vranasm]

huts (and events) make the game more interesting and fun (for me).

if you finish games with only positive results from huts/events I totally can see why...

the argument here was that the huts/events skew the comparison due to increasing the number of games one has to run (you compete with games with mostly positive results from huts/events, so every game you get couple of negative results you have to scratch and start from start - I think this one is pretty obvious)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What the G-minor will show is that huts don't matter nearly as much as many people (who don't play huts) think. The greatest #1 non-Inca game (with huts) will be beaten by a non-Inca (no Huts) game. That's true for 99% of the HoF slots. Huts do NOT make the game, and they do NOT cover for lack of skill.

Hut results have already decided ranking outcomes outright. You can make the case that "an even luckier map can overcome huts", but that doesn't mean huts are good for the game, because allowing them still requires more attempts to out-perform someone who is willing to keep trying until he gets a lucky map AND lucky hut results. Random map generation is fundamentally required in HoF (otherwise it's an XOTM clone); huts are NOT.

I don't see what is "interesting" and "fun" about a mechanic that randomly rewards you independently of skill, in a competition that purportedly is skill based.

However, in the Ancient Era, the Inca Empire can rush AIs with inadequately prepared defenses.

I don't deny that Inca is, hands down, the strongest civ in the game. They can do things other civs can't. That alone isn't sufficient criteria to ban them however. For a given map type/goal, there is likely only going to be 1-2 leader/civs that are truly competitive. Maybe instead of Inca, you'll see 1/3 Persia, 1/3 Egypt, and 1/3 something else.

Yes, the AI can't handle the quecha. However, it also can't handle worker stealing, or in general most of what we do. It certainly can't handle marathon immortals.

I guess my argument with Inca boils down to the following:

1. HoF is about getting the fastest times possible
2. Unfortunately, the fastest times possible are all with Inca
3. However, if both sides are using Inca the better player (or, thanks other problems in HoF, the one with the most time) will win.

The front tables are for the fastest times ever...and that's going to be with Inca. A filter feature would be great, not just for Inca but rather for every setting. I would argue that, based on the current setup, the front tables really aren't about skill anyway. The challenge series is a much better format for skill-based HoF competition, as is XOTM. I do believe HoF fundamentally advertises itself slightly wrongly, but that's a matter for another thread/time .

 

[Manco Capac]

Don't forget to vote no then.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Don't forget to vote no then.

I haven't decided yet. I really want to know how difficult it is to make a filter, IE what HoF database already tracks and how difficult it would be to implement. Having a variable filter on the HoF main tables available at a glance would be a lot of fun.

Frankly all of this is moot if a filter is a significant burden on the HoF staff anyway.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

...
The greatest #1 non-Inca game (with huts) will be beaten by a non-Inca (no Huts) game. That's true for 99% of the HoF slots. Huts do NOT make the game, and they do NOT cover for lack of skill.

That so called greatest game with Tribal Villages was simply my single attempt at reclaiming a #1 slot. If you check the log will see that in this Ramesses II game, not a single Hut was entered (not even for Wealth), although the option was on. I don't consider it a particular strong game in any case.

I also do not consider playing only games where a tribal village has provided a useful technology in turn 0 to be a particularly laudable strategic skill.

Sun Tzu Wu